|
Can Eidolons basically just look like regular humans? Can they behave and communicate just like regular people? Can Eidolons get pregnant? Can they impregnate others? Can they actually die forever? When an Eidolon gets sent away then re-summoned, is it the same Eidolon? Or just a recreation? Do Eidolons -have- to obey Summoners? Do they like being summoned? (I know there might be exceptions to the rules if they do.) Do Eidolons and Summoners have to be the same alignment? What's going on? How'd you spend your summer?
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Pathfailure is the Monk of the game design world. A lot of minor pointless poo poo, a lot of fail, no actual substance. And a bunch of people who rabidly lie about it and claim it's the best thing ever and can beat anything. You aren't doing that, but the Paizils sure are. Also, people are playing it is an invalid argument. Somewhere out there, there's probably some people playing FATAL. Doesn't make it a good system. It just means masochism exists as a concept. As it is, the personal house rules I made around... two years ago or more, left alone, and then revised a bit more recently are better than anything Pathfailure has done, in every way. And I wasn't trying to go for any sort of professional publishing here. I was just fixing the balance in 3.5.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Grog...quote:2) Video games are ruining our youth. 90% serious on that one. For example, when randomly generated treasure included 'dust of illusion' the party treated it as a 'red key card'. "What does this unlock?" And "better save this for the right moment." Their imaginations seem stunted to me. Maybe it was always there and I just never saw it before.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Oh, Exalted forum. I can't quit you!quote:I have often read that Exalted is very sexualized. Is that true? quote:Only in comparison to other RPGs that childishly downplay sex or ignore sex entirely. Exalted speaks of sex, sexuality and sexual topics where appropriate to the context, and does not shy away from them to satisfy puritanical naysayers. quote:I, personally, wouldn't describe it as "very" sexualized, but it is sexualized. If I had to put it on a spectrum, it'd look something like this: quote:
quote:
quote:I'm not constructing anything. you're making the assumption based on art that glorifies the beauty in the female form. if you don't like looking at it, then don't. Its not an excuse to assume that exalted is debasing women. grow up. quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:Perhaps the major difference is that I know that being offended is a choice. I choose not to be offended by things that are outside of my control. If someone chooses to be offended at the art in exalted, that is their problem. Being offended is not logical. All it does is promote unhealthy negativity. This may sound like the pot calling the kettle black but hey no one is perfect, least of all me. It is my belief that a mature adult should be able to look at this art and not immediately start demonizing it because it doesn't fit their taste. That's my major beef here. quote:
quote:This is an evolutionary quirk or the result of oustide stimuli or some other process or accident that I am probably not aware of.. All life on earth has a drive to pass on its genes to the next generation. Anything, human or otherwise, that lacks this is the exception, not the rule. Be it from mental illness, genetic divergence or some other influence. From the perspective of nature and instinct, this is an aberration, a failure. beings that do not reproduce cannot be successful as a species and will become extinct. The implication, be it choice or natural inclination toward Asexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality is irrelevant (and frankly I could not care less. copulate with a pie or not at all for all I care). Biology must reproduce to propagate a species and this is the root behind humanity as a whole sexualizing things. Most males are generically programmed to seek out a female with desirable physical features to procreate with. its as simple as that. Thus, someone creating art with their (and many others') concept of the ideal female shape is perfectly understandable and not in the least bit sexist or offensive if you approach it from a place of rational thought. quote:Regardless i do not see how erotic art can be considered human oppression. quote:
quote:
GOOD DAY SIR
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
quote:What most people do not seem to get is beautiful women wearing flattering things is a major part of the fantasy genre. Toss in some pretty dudes for good measure too, that's fine with me. I am just saying its not going to change, so complaining is pointless.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Ever since D&D released the first Alignment Grid and its attendant explanations, there has been debate about exactly what each alignment does and does not cover. Sure, it’s got Good and Evil, Law and Chaos… but what do those terms really mean? Is a Chaotic Neutral character a Lunatic or are they just quixotic? Is there any real difference between Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil? How about a Chaotic Neutral character who burns down an entire town? Is that Evil or just Chaotic? Is a Chaotic Good character really a freedom fighter or do they just hate the Man but give to charity, you know? Or the big one… Does a Paladin have to support Slavery if it’s the law? What about rape? What about Genocide? Is invading another nation full of the faithful of another religion and slaughtering them or enslaving them really the act of a Lawful Good person? Certainly, the Knights Hospitaller, Knights Templar, and especially the Knights Teutonic, the quintessential real world “Paladins” would say yes. Is Jihad the act of a Good person… or just a faithful one? These are questions that plague gamers and religious philosophers alike. Of course, this is a poor venue to talk about the reality of such acts, so let me restrict myself to gaming and talk about the Alignment Grid… or rather the Traditional Alignment Grid. For those not familiar with it, it presents 9 philosophies in a 3×3 grid defined by two axes; the ethical Law vs Chaos axis (x) and the moral Good vs Evil axis (y), with Neutral being the middle ground between each pair. This creates the alignments, from left to right and top to bottom: “Lawful Good”, “Neutral Good”, Chaotic Good”, “Lawful Neutral”, “True Neutral”, “Chaotic Neutral”, “Lawful Evil”, “Neutral Evil”, and “Chaotic Evil.” Various editions of D&D (and it’s clones and derivative systems) have expanded or modified this matrix, most notably by adding in lesser intermediary alignments such as “Lawful Lawful Good” and “Good Lawful Good” as if alignments were winds, or by eliminating half the grid as 4th edition did, transforming it into a straight line continuum of “Lawful Good”, “Good”, “Neutral”, “Evil”, and “Chaotic Evil” in a ridiculous attempt to overly simplify everything. Like many things designed for gaming in the early days, it’s a drastically oversimplified system that has many, many flaws. It’s primary flaws are ones of origin and opposition. In Origin, it assumes a stance that LG is the epitome of all moral-ethical systems and that everything else must be compared to that ideal. This means that Chaos is defined in terms related to Law and Evil is defined in terms related to Good. The later is fine, since Evil never defines itself as such… but Chaos actually gives rise to Law, not the other way round. As math demonstrates, put enough Chaos into a system and you get Order. In Opposition, it says that all 9 are supposedly balanced, but fails to accurately describe anything besides LG and LE in concrete / comprehensible terms… because it has no clear idea of what the opposites of Goodness or Lawfulness might be and so it simply guesses. For purposes of the Rules, this is, to an extent, fine, but it leaves players often confused as to what their limitations are and leaves GMs confused as to what exact motivations should be driving / limiting the PCs and NPCs alike. Now, many many articles (both serious and satirical) have been written about the subject of Alignment, so I know I’m not the first. In fact, I’ve drawn inspiration of the years from dozens of them, not the least being TVTropes.com’s amusing “Lawful Stupid”, “Chaotic Stupid” and “Stupid Evil” pages, not to mention the litteral tons of meme-grids that feature everything from Spongebob characters to fantasy authors to Earth Nations to various incarnations of Batman. That said, I think there is still room for improvement, and not by expanding the grid to 5×5 as some, like Do A Spot Check’s to the right, which is nice, but adds even more terms with vaguely defined meaning and does nothing to define the terms we already have. Even Pathfinder is saddled, thanks to the OGL, with a system they can’t redefine and so we constantly have Paladins acting like morons or kill joys because the rules say so (as opposed to because their god says so, which would be fine). Like I said, attempts have been made to make the whole system make sense, usually by replacing some of the terms, or changing up an axis, and they’ve all met with limited success, mostly because they weren’t, as the Game of Thrones one on the left demonstrates, compatible with the original system, no matter how well they may describe character outlook / motivation / ideology. To that end, I propose the following, called the BRACI Grid. BRACI stands for Balanced, Responsible, Authoritarian, Collectivist, Individualist. Like the Traditional Grid, the BRACI Grid has two axes and can be mapped over the Traditional Grid to replace or clarify definitions if you like. However, the BRACI Grid uses truly opposed ideologies and has (although this part is optional) a built in gradient scale which defines the limits of an individual’s dedication to their chosen Alignment. The BRACI system assumes that Neutral / Balanced is the default state and that the vast majority of all people fall into this camp or the lowest grades of the 9 Alignments, Moderate. Replacing / Redefining the Law-Chaos Axis, I introduce Collectivism (C) standing in for Law, and Individualism (I) standing in for Chaos. Collectivism values the individual only in as far as they are components of the larger society. What is “good” for the society must be placed above that which is “good” for those who comprise that society and deviation from societal norms is seldom rewarded. Individualism, in contrast, values the society only for its ability to protect and nurture the Self. Individualists see Society as a collection of individuals and will only tolerate a society that places the rights and privileges of the individual at the center of its ideology. For the Good-Evil Axis, I introduce Responsibility (R) standing in for Good and Authority (A) standing in for Evil. Responsibles [Update: Responsibility is short for Personal Responsibility, not just responsibility in general] view the role of the Self and the State to be one of doing what must be done, of caring for people and making sure that the maximum number of people are allowed to live long, relatively happy lives. It views Authority with suspicion, preferring to use feedback, honor, and pride to keep both governors and governed on task. Responsibility is a tool that only grows stronger the more it is employed. It makes everyone stronger. Authoritarians view the role of the State and the Self to be ones of determinism, of what is and is not allowed. Authority is Power, over the self and over others, and Authority must be used or it is wasted. Authority is a tool for control. Its strength is greatest when all obey. So, what does this mean? Let’s look at the 4 corners, the extremes, first. Chaotic Good / Responsible Individualism: A Responsible Individualist thinks for and of herself but acts for everyone to the limits of her ability and desire to do so. The RI Persona does not allow society to dictate any aspect of her life, but she is always conscious of how others can be affected by her choices. This is a Libertarian ideal (at least in theory if not in practice.) Lawful Good / Responsible Collectivism: A Responsible Collectivist follows the mores and rules of society, subsuming her own desires and goals for the good of society as a whole. The RC Persona acknowledges that sacrifices must be made for the good of all, and knowing that to demand sacrifices of others is wrong, sacrifices herself instead. This is both a Socialist and a Buddhist ideal. Chaotic Evil / Authoritarian Individualism: An Authoritarian Individualist places himself at the pinnacle of wants and needs, assuming to himself the position of absolute decision maker. No one else’s wants or needs are considered. The AI Persona allows no one to have power over them, save those who can offer something that they want or need, be it shelter, sustenance, or even guidance. While it is easy to define this as a Psychopath’s Ideal (and it is), it is also the Survivalist Ideal, valued by many hunter-gatherer tribes and others who place personal strength higher than compassion or obedience. Lawful Evil / Authoritarian Collectivism: An Authoritarian Collectivist obeys the laws, written or unwritten, to the exclusion of such minor concerns as emotionality, compassion, or mercy. All must serve the state. The AC Persona obeys, out of fear or desire to serve or lack of imagination. This is a Fascist Ideal and is the easiest to view as purely evil, but one must remember that, by and large, it is also the Corporate and Military Ideal, where obedience to rules and superiors is placed above personal desire. Those are the extremes, but what about the middle grounds, the Neutrals? In the Traditional Grid, Neutrality is seen as the lack of something… but it shouldn’t be. Rather, it is the default. The only lack is the lack of a strong conviction or pull towards one of the extremes. The word Neutral implies not taking sides, so perhaps a better term would be Balanced (B) , which is why we use it. Neutral Good / Balanced Responsibility: A Responsibly Balanced person is someone who tries to balance the needs of the self against the needs of the community… a Liberal Democrat in the traditional sense (as opposed to the political parties of the same name). Neutral Evil / Balanced Authoritarianism: A Balanced Authoritarian is someone who seeks to find advantage in all things, obeying social rules and laws only as far as needed… a typical gangster. If they have a code, it will be a personal or clique code of conduct. This is the Criminal Ideal. Chaotic Neutral / Balanced Individualism: A Balanced Individualist is a complete individualist. They eschew such concepts as Responsibility or Authority. They claim no authority over others and no responsibility to or for them. This is a Pure Anarchist, a thrill seeker, artist, or iconoclast. Lawful Neutral / Balanced Collectivism: A Balanced Collectivist is someone who conforms to society because it is expected, someone who views it as their duty to be like others and not stand out too much. This is a Communist, usually reinforced with Buddhist thought. True Neutral / Objectively Balanced: A Balanced Objectivist is one of those who actively embrace Authority and Responsibility, Individuality and Community, rather than rejecting any of them. They strive to maintain a balanced approach, trying not to be doctrinaire in authority, trying not to be consumed by responsibility, trying to balance the wants and needs of everyone against their own ability to provide. By this light, almost everyone is TN, but it’s no longer a bad thing. It’s just the way it is. It’s about getting by. By and large, these people tend to be Conservatives and Centrists. GRADIENTS: Within each Alignment there are three levels of ideological dedication, defining the strength of conviction as well as the types of transgressions such individuals are prone to. At the first Degree, Moderate, are those who believe in their chosen Alignment, but are flexible in its application. They might get angry when challenged, but typically violence only comes when they are pushed too far. At the second Degree, Fanatic, are those who become angered at the existence of anyone who holds views counter to their own. They usually tolerate those who are within one step, and might be persuaded to deal with those who are within two steps, but anyone farther away than that is subject to the full weight of their hatred, scorn, and rage. At the third and final Degree, Enlightened, are those who are both dedicated to their alignment completely and secure enough in its ideology that the disagreement of others does not matter to them. Enlightened individuals are often called Saints, Holy Men, or Wise… but they are, in many ways, even more dedicated to their chosen alignment than the Fanatics. They simply do not care (in most cases) what “Unbelievers” think. Alignment Gradients and Behaviour: What this means, by and large, is that Moderates will often break from their chosen alignment in minor ways. Hypocrisy this might be, but by and large it’s more a matter of expedience and or weakness, such as a Priest of the God of Purity and Chastity visiting a brothel. He knows he does wrong, but does not absolve himself of it. Instead he strives to be better, knowing he will fail from time to time. Fanatics, however, are far more likely to go to extremes, often violently, aggressively, and without consideration. They are far more likely to be hypocrites on a grand scale, espousing one view and discarding it whenever it becomes inconvenient, such as a Priest of a God of Forgiveness and Inclusion burning heretics and sinners at the stake, then justifying it because “God Wills It!”. At the extreme levels of dedication, The Enlightened will seldom, if ever, violate the tenets of their belief code, although there will, of course be variation and not all of them are in any way religious. A Priest of the God of Forgiveness at this level will strive always to forgive those who transgress and feel genuine sorrow when he is unable to find it within himself to do so. [UPDATE: A Moderately Balanced individual is just generally unbiased towards any side. An Objectively Balanced individual can see the validity of each side's arguments and apply each as need for the situation. An Absolutely Balanced individual refuses to take sides, being completely disinterested in the debate.] Note: I use the example of Priests simply because most people, especially in pre-industrial settings, tend to base their Alignment choice on an acceptance or rejection of the dominant religious or philosophical thinking of their area. This is true even when the individual is not of that religion. I’m Jewish, raised Orthodox Jewish, but in the United States of America, it is impossible to avoid Christianity. Thus, much of my internal ethical and moral code is drawn from Christian thinkers, no matter how galling it might be to admit it. Judaism is not, at its core, a particularly forgiving faith, while Christianity (at least as written) strives to be, and I find that I do try to forgive those who wrong me because I think that is admirable. However, Judaism has no concept of Sin, preferring Transgression (the first is an act against the laws of god, punished by god, while the second is also an act against the laws of god, but punished by man). We do not, per se, have a concept of Hell and do not believe in Damnation or Salvation. But because I have been surrounded by the concepts of Sin, Damnation, Salvation, Redemption, etc, my philosophies have been shaped not just by the absence of those concepts but by an active rejection of them. Compare this to Conversion in that Judaism has long understood and rejected proselytization, considering it a major no no, making my dislike of something as fundamentally Christian as Missionaries intrinsic to my native religion and not based upon a personal rejection of that particular idea. Am I saying, in this, that the old, Traditional Grid, is useless? Not at all. By and large, I do think the ideals of Lawful Goodness are encompassed by Responsible Collectivism, the ideals of Lawful Evil are at home within the larger confines of Authoritarian Collectivism, the cruelty and depravity of Chaotic Evil fit right in with the more extreme and selfish sects of Authoritarian Individualism, and the freedom fighters and renegades of Chaotic Good will find they belong with the others in Responsible Individualism. And of course, the lunatics of Chaotic Neutral will find their rightful home somewhere in the mix. What I am saying is that by using the BRACI Grid either as a replacement or an overlay for the Traditional Grid, you’ll find that the alignments are a lot more sensical, a lot more broad and flexible, and that you understand them better. Finally, yes, there is a considerable overlap between the BRACI Grid and a Political Chart, such as the Asplund Chart featured to the left. There is a reason for this. Political ideology, like religious identity, are both philosophical systems that are largely described in binary terms. I’ve tried to be as apolitical as feasible, avoiding terms like left and right and progressive and conservative as much as possible, striving instead to describe the struggle between personal responsibility and state control in the simplest terms while contrasting it with the place and role of the individual in larger society… which, at the heart of it, is what social philosophy (the study of morals and ethics) is all about. Update and Addendum: It has been pointed out to me that many will see “Responsible” and think that this must mean that “Authoritarian”s must therefore be Irresponsible. This is not the case. The English Language lacks an antonym for Authoritarian, and Irresponsible is not the opposite of Responsible, it is the lack of responsibility. A Responsible person feels a sense of responsibility for others, while an Authoritarian feels a sense of obedience to others. Perhaps Obedient might be a better choice than Authoritarian. Let me know what you think in the comment section below. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
quote:Radical Feminist views have no place in exalted. Nowhere in any of the books or lore (at least that I have read) is there anything that says women are not equal to men. There may be some small cultural things in some of the cities or regions that are patriarchal, but that's just reality.  Thread seems to have been relocated now. Another thread on the same board, titled Does Exalted have a minimum IQ requirement quote:Like the title says, I was wondering if some people just aren’t bright enough to handle Exalted. I suspect there is a limit. I had to advertise for players back in 1999 to start a Vampire the Masquerade (afterwards called VtM) game, and just under half of the players were way out of their league. I had one experienced WW player, one with no experience who caught on very fast, one adequate player, and two dodos. Oddly enough, both of the dodos had considerable experience in White Wolf games, but one had no clue how to play and the other had no clue about the themes of them (He had played VtM for over a year but didn’t understand that losing Humanity was bad!).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
quote:stupidity. quote:no not a one post wonder Libertad! fucked around with this message at 02:16 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:Grognards.txt: Feminists are bigoted, gently caress you Eclipse Phase you bigoted fucks. quote:Rasputin443556
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
quote:Grognards.txt: Feminists are bigoted, gently caress you Eclipse Phase you bigoted fucks. I fully support this as a potential new title change. Grog tax: quote:So, some of you might know of the kickass Creative Commons RPG called Eclipse Phase. Most of the stuff they do is pretty cool, but recently they appointed a SJW-esque user name bibliophile20 as a moderator who's been silencing MRAs (claiming that we're making "group attacks" by making accurate statments about feminist activities), and banning the ones who refuse to comply with the support of the other, generally left-leaning, moderators. quote:You tend to find this in any hobby that's male dominated. There's a lot of over protectionism for women in a hobby that's mostly men. Usually it's other guys that are so excited that a woman is interested in the same thing they are that they white knight up and over compensate. quote:RPG.net is the same way. They have openly stated that admitting you are an MRA is grounds for a permanent ban from the forum, as is stating any MRA views or "denying woman's experiences" by disagreeing with them on gender issues. OP posted:Yeah. The real irony is that in the world of Eclipse Phase, feminism is almost certainly a dead ideology, given the ability to freely swap your mind into a body with a different gender (or no gender at all)! the only rational poster here posted:Since bibliophile20 was appointed moderator, about two people have been banned. One of those was banned by bibliophile20 under the reasoning you've quoted them as giving. Libertad! fucked around with this message at 06:19 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Libertad! posted:Grog tax: The guy making the first post in that conversation recently got banned from another forum I'm on for advocating the death penalty for homosexuality. I could tell you stories - so many stories - about that guy. (Also, I'm "the only rational poster here" in that conversation, and I wish to emphasize that I'm not an MRA in any shape of form.) More Eclipse Phase fun, this time answering the question nobody asked! quote:I think Rocky (The Thunderfuck Squirrel!) has entered the forum zeitgeist as being representative of Scurriers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
One of the moderators for Posthuman Studios posted to RPGnet about the reasoning behind the move. Long story short, the company's online forums were lightly (or un-) moderated, and as usually happens a small number of shitlords move in and dominate the place and drive everybody else away. In this case, it was three MRA misogynists, including grognards.txt superstar Nick012000. Eventually TPTB decided that having a forum that was widely known as a place to avoid wasn't good for business (especially given how toxic MRAs have become after the events in Santa Barbara) and so a housecleaning was ordered.quote:Well, on the thread's topic, let me chime in. Hi, I'm bibliophile20, the first forum moderator over at the Eclipse Phase forum; I'm currently taking a leave of absence from that forum due to the sheer vitriol and hate I was getting from the MRAs and a few other posters. It was that bad.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
^Flushing a forum like a toilet is an often difficult but always rewarding experience that makes elfgame land just a little better. tax quote:the [new splat] book is like a love-letter to retard strength.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
I'm not the grog police, but I think maybe those last two posts aren't really grog. The most recent one at least isn't very good grog, since it's super-generic sounding and could even be a valid complaint about a really awful book. Needs more meat! Taxachusettes: quote:
I think they did the right thing, don't get me wrong. But what—and I'm just asking here—what if they gently caress babies? Just asking.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Well, Plague, if you're hungry for grog, nothing like a little home-cooking, eh? From a thread titled "Does Exalted Have a Minimum IQ and Maturity Requirement?":quote:Like the title says, I was wondering if some people just aren’t bright enough to handle Exalted. I suspect there is a limit. I had to advertise for players back in 1999 to start a Vampire the Masquerade (afterwards called VtM) game, and just under half of the players were way out of their league. I had one experienced WW player, one with no experience who caught on very fast, one adequate player, and two dodos. Oddly enough, both of the dodos had considerable experience in White Wolf games, but one had no clue how to play and the other had no clue about the themes of them (He had played VtM for over a year but didn’t understand that losing Humanity was bad!). You see if the game looks like a contradictory clusterfuck where the rules layout resembles an Escher drawing more than a gamebook, you're just too dumb and immature to Get It, this emperor is totally wearing clothes. Also we keep writing all this ~totally sick~ mature content with corpsefucking and bestiality...and then we get players who're actually into that poo poo, what gives yo?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:I'm not the grog police, but I think maybe those last two posts aren't really grog. The most recent one at least isn't very good grog, since it's super-generic sounding and could even be a valid complaint about a really awful book. Needs more meat! Okay motherfucker quote:We're the 3rd Sheol XVII Penal Legionaries. Because most serious crimes in the Imperium carry a death sentence, the Penal Legionnaires are all petty thieves, fraudsters, rapists, drug addicts, prostitutes, panderers, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Ronwayne posted:Okay motherfucker No serious crimes at all. Just a bunch of rapists. Lovely. Grog tax: James Desborough posted:
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 21:09
|
|
Ronwayne posted:Okay motherfucker I'm surprised the GM didn't see that every single person in the group had made a rapist, throw his hands up, and go "gently caress you guys I'm finding a new group." e: Grog tax incoming, forgot I needed it. Give me a second to find something on RPGNet. e2: Some stupid person complaining about the Eclipse Phase anti-grog stance: quote:It's not hard really. IF your tolerant of other opinions you respect the right of the individual to have the opinion and express it. If you don't want that on your private forum that is fine - but to claim at the same time that you want tolerance and openness at the exact time you are banning said opinion, that is the opposite of tolerance. The danger of not understanding this distinction is that you leave the definition of what tolerance is in the hands of the majority who then decide what can and cannot be discussed. In other words, the next act of "tolerance" may be againgst one of your opinions. SALT CURES HAM fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
quote:DCC Campaign Update: Now With More Gender-Indeterminate Wizards!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
If you want to play a female warrior, you can! You're playing wrong through. Don't do it. But you can! But you shouldn't. Women aren't fighters. ~*~ -- FEMALE CHARACTERS -- The Hyborian Age is dominated by men. Rarely will you see a woman, armored-up, swinging a heavy sword in battle, keeping their own, right next to the men. It happens, sure. But, it is rare. Valeria comes to mind--both incarnations of her (from Howard's story Red Nails and the more battle oriented thief from the 1982 movie). Even then, it can be argued that Valeria (either version) is more of a finesse fighter than she is a strength fighter. And, Red Sonja may be thought of. But, I'll remind you that Sonja's power is imbued in her by her goddess. Sonja's power is not natural. I don't advocate using any type of modifiers for female characters. The same 4D6, drop the lowest, total, and arrange to taste process should be used for female and male characters in this game. What I will say, though, is this: Once you've rolled your six stats, consider putting the lowest roll in STR if playing a female. This thinking will keep the gritty reality edge on your game that is a common part of the atmosphere of the Hyborian Age. For example, in my newest Conan campaign, I've just had a player get extremely lucky with the dice and roll some very high stats: 16, 16, 15, 15, 14, 9. He considered playing a female thief along the lines of Valeria from the 1982 movie. Looking at those stats, we both agreed that the 9 or the 14 should be assigned to STR, but DEX and INT should definitely get the two 16's. The player kept debating about going with the below or swapping out STR and CON. STR 9 DEX 16 CON 14 INT 16 WIS 15 CHA 15 The interesting thing about the Conan RPG is that there is an entire character class devoted to the strength of females. Since the fairer race is typically less physical than their male counterparts, some women have learned to overcome this obstacle by focusing on other powers at their command--with the power of their sex not the least of these. In the Conan RPG, the Temptress class was added to the first edition as a secondary character class in a support book but then was made an official core class in the second edition. If you are currently watching or reading the Game of Thrones saga, then the Red Witch, companion to Stannis Baratheon, is certainly a Temptress class. Cersei Lannister, too, would probably be classed as a Noble/Temptress multi-classed character. Temptresses are manipulators. They play games behind the scenes, toying with people's loyalty to them, often imprisoning a strong male with their sex. It takes a strong role player to play a Temptress character well, but in the hands of a competent player, the experience can be like few others in any other role playing game. It can be quite rewarding. Are there physically strong women in the Conan RPG? Sure. Their can be. And, if what I've said above sticks in your craw, then ignore it and play your game any way you think best. Besides, this is a fantasy based roleplaying game. Really, anything goes as long as you and your players accept it. If you want to have a Brienne type character from Game of Thrones--a warrior woman capable of defeating most other men, then so be it! In the 2011 movie, the background shots of Khalar Zym's army featured what some speculate to be one-eyed Amazon warriors--all females (though they were archers). If it's cool, and you like it, then put it in your game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Gunlines There are many ways to write a bad 40k list, but by far the most common way is by creating gunlines. Gunlines are armies that rely mostly on long-range shooting to do damage, and make very little use of the movement phase, whether it's having a static army with just a few small, fast, objective grabbers, or whether the whole army moves, but not very far (mech gunlines jostling vehicles around small distances to get better lanes of fire), or the limiting factor is time (the whole army moves, but not until the end of the game). It's plain to see why gunlines are bad. As much as possible, they try to make it so that assault never, ever happens. They also try as much as possible to keep opponents' short-range shooting from doing anything either. They will likely also have other things like weapons with interceptor to cancel out the usefulness of deepstrikers, or ignores-cover weapons to cut those rules out of the game as well. What gunlines do is two things. Firstly, they prevent their opponent's decisions from having meaning (choosing deepstrikers, close combat units, etc.), and secondly they make the game much, much more shallow (cutting out the rules for close combat, cutting out the rules for the movement phase, etc.). What a gunline does is to just sit there, using as few rules as possible and just rolling dice to see how much of their opponent's stuff is left standing. This is the opposite of 40k. If a person wanted to just sit there and roll dice, they should feel free to start playing Yahtzee, rather than taking a deep game and ruining it by making it so shallow. The worst part is that gunlines breed more gunlines. This is because gunlines exist to shut down anything but long-range shooting, which means if an opponent wants to be able to DO anything in a game, the only parts of their army that will be able to do said anything will be longrange shooters themselves. Thus if a person wants to do more, they will add more of the part that does anything, which means adding in more longrange shooting. This might not be true were it not for the fatal pairing of gunlines and list strength. Both for systemic reasons (those who hit hardest fastest gain a big advantage that snowballs over the course of the game), and for particular reasons (40k's "you go, I go", the rules for wound allocation and terrain, etc.), gunlines also happen to be the strongest form of army. This means that even if you try to counter gunlines with speed, say, you are still going to be playing a weaker list against a stronger list, and a gunline player can easily use this advantage to force you back into the mould. This is a case of list strength giving a player power, and then the player using that power irresponsibly to force their opponents into a shallow game. It's not a matter of the gunline player "setting up a puzzle and letting their opponent solve it". It's a matter of the gunline player debasing their opponent's decisions while looking for the easiest way to win the game. It's not to say that there might be some theoretical way to play a list that's both a gunline and a good list, but practically, I've never seen anything even remotely close. If you like gunlines, then unfortunately you like a way of playing 40k that makes games less like 40k. Perhaps another gamewould suit you better - one that doesn't suffer from being reduced to Yahtzee with miniatures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
-- VALERIA -- Check out this clip from 1982's Conan The Barbarian. . clip At 2:32, Valeria uses the feat Cleave that allows her a second attack on the second foe as she downs the first foe. Notice that she doesn't take a five foot step. The second foe comes to her. On a grid, these two would have just approached Valeria using a double move, putting them in base-to-base contact with the thief. The shifting you see Valeria do is her re-positioning she does to attack the second foe at the new angle. She doesn't move from her square on these attacks. At 2:46, Valeria uses her standard action to taunt the two new foes. In game terms, she's using the Demoralize Other function of the Intimidate skill. The GM gives her a +2 bonus because the two foes have just seen her quickly dispatch two of their comrades. The GM gives her an additional +2 bonus on the demoralize check due to the black woad she wears, making her a fearsome, intimidating opponent, indeed. That's a total +4 modifier to her check. And, from her one of her foe's hesitation, it looks like her check succeeded on the one, but not both foes. The foe that hesitates and allows his companion to attack is -2 to all attacks and checks due to the intimidation (in spite of the fact that the GM also gave the foes a +2 on their check to resist the demoralizing attempt since they outnumber Valeria). The other foe--the one that moves to attack Valeria--made his check to resist the attempt. At 2:51, Valeria uses the combat maneuver called Use The Battlefield (see page 212 of the Core rulebook). She makes DC 20 Tumble check, and with its success, she gains a +2 attack bonus on her target. In the video, you see her take a couple of steps, jump, and push off the wall to come down on her enemy, just gaining the bonus. As a woman, Valeria's STR is mostly likely around STR 13 or so. I'd put her at STR 14. To increase her attack bonus, she relies on maneuvers like this in order to put her full weight behind the thrust of her sword. Examples of.... CLEAVE INTIMIDATE, DEMORALIZE OTHER USE THE BATTLEFIELD, TUMBLE
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
I'm with Alzrius on this. I most enjoy games when they are as realistic as possible, where the fantasy elements are limited to what the game is about. As a simplistic example, D&D is about fighting monsters with magic and swords, so I expect fantastic monsters and magic, but not normal humans with the ability to jump over buildings. So men being stronger than women in-game sounds just fine to me, unless a main theme of my game is "What if women were as strong as men?" Though if a player came to me and said "I want to play a woman fighter who's as strong as a man" that would be just fine too, as that's obviously a theme that player wants to address in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Did you know it is literally impossible to block dudes or keep their attention? Sports? Do not exist. ~*~ I am beginning to think that the Defender role doesn't truly exist in reality. This is probably controversial because the knight with shield is a core iconic image. But if you look at a fight with multiple roles, the most logical thing for an enemy to do is ignore the defender and attack one of the other three roles. To prevent this, games give the defender all sorts of "unnatural" abilities. Come And Get It, threat, taunts, etc. Things to force the enemy into taking a sub-optimal attack. These are abilities that often end up being very controversial. Perhaps a triad of Striker, Leader, and Controller is more correct. Shield classes could be fit into Striker and Leader types. If you look at MMOs, Defenders really only exist in Player vs Environment situations, where the computer-controlled enemies are programmed to attack the Defender first. In Player vs Player combat, the Defender role often disappears (unless there is something like flag carrying in a capture the flag game). Instead PvP collapses into Striker/Leader/Controller. In my view, this implies that the Striker/Leader/Controller roles are more "real", and that Defender is an artificial role.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Not An MRA For Sure on EP forums posted:Meh, I am glad it is sausagefest. I saw video and role playing games ruined by inclusion of women and catering to their needs. Wouldn't want this to happen here. I like discussions about science, engineering, different worlds, new alien species, interstellar travel. The thought that these discussions would turn into "muh misogyny" or "muh feelings" isn't a pleasant prospect. Still Not An MRA For Sure bitching on RPGSite now posted:I am one of the guys that were banned as MRA's at EP forum. But who will tolerate the intolerant? posted:This is one of the reasons I hate to see sweeping bans like the one instituted on the EP forums. They become bludgeons to use on anyone that doesn't hold opinions the mods don't like even if initiated with the best intentions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Not sure that this counts as grog, as it comes from the Gaming Den. They tend to vitriolically oppose many of the ideals that old school fatbeards are constantly fellating. But here goes: Lord Mistborn posted:Ok that's enough. You clearly think that this is a meaningful argument. It is not. The "actual play" argument only loses you points here, it is brand of faulty logic the Den has recognized long ago. Anecdotes about how something "works at my table" do not prove anything, especially if that table is composed of fanboys like yourself. RPG fanboys do not apply critical thinking to RPGs indeed they do the opposite of that living in denial about issues with the system even when those issues are spelled out to them. This sums up the gaming den view of RPG's perfectly. Anytime the GM has to make a ruling to fill in a gap in the rules, or make something up on the fly, it means that the game is unplayable. So...like...all RPG's. All RPG's are unplayable by Frank Trollman's definition. All of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
I think K, coauthor of Frank and K's 'Tome' of not actually fixing 3.5, has reached a powerful new insight.quote:I'm actually just done with dice-based mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Not sure that this counts as grog, as it comes from the Gaming Den. They tend to vitriolically oppose many of the ideals that old school fatbeards are constantly fellating. The Gaming Den objects vitriolically to many of the ideals that "classic" grogs have - in favour of their own idiosyncratic approach that says that 3.5 got everything right and is the One True Way. They may not be old school grogs, but Trollman is routinely quoted here for very good reasons. quote:Still Not An MRA For Sure bitching on RPGSite now posted: I wonder why he was banned... The following all comes from a single page of a single thread before the Eclipse Phase forums started being cleaned up: quote:In short:no. Feminists generally don't fight for equality but for women to have a privileged position in society. For example they aren't fighting for women to be instituted in the draft, or face the same prison terms when convicted. quote:Bibilophiles passionate defense of feminist movements was flawed at every point to be fair. Feminists do not fight passionately for abolishing the draft or equal sentences for women in prison for starters. quote:I couldn't not spot this sentence in your post.You seem to exclude people who happen to have white skin color from being victims of racism(feel free to correct me if I am no right) White people aren't an uniform group with the same traits, cultural values, attributes, history and so on,but a various collection of groups, and some of them are victims of racism as well. And his sig? quote:—
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I wonder why he was banned... The following all comes from a single page of a single thread before the Eclipse Phase forums started being cleaned up: the same guy posted:Meh, I am glad [transhumanism] is sausagefest. I saw video and role playing games ruined by inclusion of women and catering to their needs. Wouldn't want this to happen here. I like discussions about science, engineering, different worlds, new alien species, interstellar travel. The thought that these discussions would turn into "muh misogyny" or "muh feelings" isn't a pleasant prospect. The website's female sysop chimed in to complain about how people like her are being excluded from tech circles, and replied to Extrasolar Angel with: the female sysop posted:Thank you for demonstrating my point. To which he replied: the same guy posted:Since you have proved my point by focusing on social issues and "drama" I would like to thank you as well. Complaining about being excluded? Pointless female drama-mongering. still the same guy posted:From my experience the presence of women in hobbies I liked had negative effect. This was basically the guy who said he didn't want there to be women playing role-playing games. One wonders why he is now banned from a role-playing forum frequented by women...
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Just found this grogmine in my emails from a while back. Long before I knew that Pathfinder was as bad as 3.5, I linked to its SRD on facebook and said it looked interesting. When I checked my page again later, this flood of glorious grog had been posted. Please make note that all of these posts are all from the same person, an ex-GM of mine.quote:Honestly? I took a look and didn't really care for it. It seemed like something a lot of my former players got together and wrote--the ones who were disappointed that their character couldn't blow up the world by blinking. There's plenty of examples but the biggest thing that stands out to me is the increase of ranger and wizard hit dice from d8/d4 to d10/d6 respectively. Yes, WotC neutered the ranger a bit by taking them from d10 to d8 in 3E buuut they did it to try and bring something that fairly resembles balance to the table. They have something that borders on the rogue's skill points and gain a modicum of feats for giggles... but someone at Pathfinder felt they still needed to horde in on the fighter's HD? quote:My take on 3.5 was that everyone was in this really big game of rock-paper-scissors. Wizards don't need a hit die increase: their class feature is that they tell the rules to go sit down and shut up. They shouldn't be able to take a punch at any level... It's just not right... quote:Casters are the power class (except for sorcerers who are the equivalent to the embarrassing and oft annoying little cousins who your parents force you to entertain at family gatherings because "they look up to you"). In 3E, clerics and druids had access to one of the most broken spells in the game: Harm. Praise be to Yevon that WotC went ahead and neutered that in 3.5. Still, clerics, druids and wizards have the power to pull off that Nazi face-melt from the Indiana Jones movie if the mood strikes (and so long as they've had a decent night's sleep). quote:My experience is that the players eventually come to a gaming session going, "My halfling rogue is going to leave the party tonight so that I can bring in a new character." They then proceed to pull out a sheet that shows they took their race from Savage Species, added a template from the Monster Manual, multiclassed by taking a class from Complete Warrior and Complete Arcane, got feats from Tome and Blood and an article printed in the July 2004 edition of Dragon, equipment from Races of Stone and spells from Wheel of Time (you know, so that they can have Balefire...) and don't seem to understand why a line of blood is now trickling from your nose after the sheer wankery of the entire thing causes their GM to have a massive anurism. I've been told by DMs who have had him as a player that this is exactly how he builds characters. quote:Typically when I play a game, I give the players the PH and nothing more. You always end up with those players who flip through other books and fail to understand why you don't want to open the door ("It's just Complete Champion! Why can't I take a feat from it!?!") that will bring out everyone's hidden wankery. LordZoric fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:The Gaming Den objects vitriolically to many of the ideals that "classic" grogs have - in favour of their own idiosyncratic approach that says that 3.5 got everything right and is the One True Way. They may not be old school grogs, but Trollman is routinely quoted here for very good reasons. There's also the fact that the quotes of average Gaming Denizens (my term for Frank and his followers) aren't as bad, comparatively speaking, as The RPG Site and creepy sex poo poo. For example, Frank and a lot of the posters there realize how wrong it is to insert rape fantasies into gaming sessions, and that basing orcs and goblins off of real-world "primitive" minority cultures is pretty racist. I remember a thread over there of one guy complaining about "militant feminism" making rape in media an "unnecessarily big deal," and the entire board pretty much turned on him. Another part of it is due to Frank having some hard-left Marxist viewpoints. This, combined with a large section of the board going to his defense whenever people disagree with him, ends up creating an atmosphere where more conservative and reactionary grogposts can't as easily take root. This isn't always the case: a few posters enjoy saying the word "human being" and making fun of gamers by implying they have sex with other men (despite nominally being in favor of gay rights). Anyway, some old Gaming Den grog. News breaks out that Gary Gygax dies, and some of the posters are less than respectful. quote:There used to be this thing about speaking ill of the dead, especially the recently dead. It would be nice if we could have a moratorium on the more venomous criticism of Gygax's many faults until he's at least in the ground. Grog posted:There used to be reasons for it, too. Used to be, you lived in a fairly small, tight nit community. If you talked poo poo about a dead person, you upset their family and generally started issues between your family and theirs. Now? Now you've got 6 billion anonymous strangers. Miss Manners doesn't have as much practical value anymore. quote:Unfortunately, this occasion is being used to cement Gary Gygax's reputation as sole grandfather and mastermind of D&D. Gary Gygax. Just as bad as Nixon and Reagan. I remember having an argument with this poster a few years back when I still posted on the board, when I asked him why he cared so much about people playing 4th Edition and having their needs catered to by WotC. He said that it was just as bad as people listening to right-wing talk radio and eating out at fast food restaurants. I can't find the post, but I'd post it if I had it on me. more TGD grog posted:What I find wrong w/ 4th edition: "I want to stab dragons the size of a small keep with skin like supple adamantine and command over time and space to death with my longsword in head to head combat, but I want to be totally within realistic capabilities of a real human being!" --Caedrus mocking 4rries You know, I think that Frank got a well-deserved following, at first. Although his Tome series did not fix D&D like promised, he was one of the few people at the time who was making large-scale redesigns to 3rd Edition, like making Fighters not suck, coming up with low-level extraplanar adventure ideas, making greater magic items unable to be bought with gold, etc. However, the Frank of 2006 is very different than the Frank today, in game design philosophy. For example, present-day Frank believes that preventing people from playing character concepts you don't like is the most important job as a game designer. And yet he hates Sean K Reynolds for nerfing Monks. He didn't hold this position back when making the Tomes: 2006 Frank did not like the Eldritch Knight Prestige Class or gish builds, but he made a better version because he realized a lot of people enjoyed playing it. He did the same with making a new template for non-evil undead, I believe. He doesn't always practice what he preaches either, but his inability to admit that he's wrong on just about any issue means that he became blind to his own flaws, and his homebrew work grew worse over time. The writing style of the Tome Series is so far away from the Bane Guard or After Sundown (where he describes monsters and events via Family Guy non-sequesters) that it's not even funny. Speaking of which, Frank's defenders on the Bane Guard's talk section: quote:This class would make a terrible defender, as its primary marking ability is an Immediate Reaction, which cannot be used on its own turn. Whoever designed this does not understand the fundamentals of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition. quote:Please backup your claim and sign you post (by placing "--~~~~" at the end of your post). Unfortunately, no 4e expert are present right now to argue, you have to wait for them. If you want your comments to be taken seriously you are required to at least elaborate a little, not a two-line long whining. --Leziad 23:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC) quote:It seems clear to me that the intent is to allow that immediate reaction to be used on its own turn. All it needs to do is be changed to a minor action, or have a tiny footnote that says "Despite being an immediate action, this power can be used on your own turn". Indeed, saying that the author "does not understand the fundamentals of D&D 4e" just because of ONE MINOR MISTAKE, when its plainly clear what the author intended is overly harsh. And a defender doesn't need to be able to mark often or frequently - the sheer fact that this class can cause prone or immobilization at-will makes it an effective defender. Karrius 00:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC) quote:ONE mistake? How about the class feature that gives +CHA to all attacks against marked opponents? Not only is that broken (up to a +5 to hit at first level, untyped!), it gets more broken as you level up. Ditto for the alternate build, which has the same problem as the Wizard's Orb of Imposition class feature, only worse (stunlocking all the time!). There's the fact that it grants Threatening Reach and Heavy Blade Opportunity as class features, and can mark enemies with an OA. Tide of Battle, as mentioned, can't be used on the player's turn. That's either a typo and it's meant as a free action - not minor, as that would make it impossible to use at all - in which case it's insanely overpowered (+CHA damage to any enemy you hit, and it lowers attack rolls and damage as well!) or it's written correctly and is intended to be awkward and only barely usable thanks to Threatening Reach. Speaking of which, how many reach weapons other than the whip are usable by the sorts of small creatures that supposedly favor this class? There's the at-wills you mentioned which immobilize and knock prone (and it can immobilize AT RANGE) while dealing full normal damage; one of them even targets a non-AC defense. How about the fact that you gain at-will powers every time you gain a daily? The only existing class that even comes close to resembling that is the Psion preview, and that's due to the unique way Psion powers work. There's the L1 daily Shadow Assault which deals 4[W] damage plus turns you invisible - nice for a striker, but this is supposedly a defender. Speaking of which, how about the L10 utility Rallying Shout? That's a straight-up leader power. Those aren't the only examples of this sort of thing and they greatly exceed the tendency of other classes to dabble into another role. And that doesn't even take into account powers like the L2 utility Natural Leader or the L10 Dark Binding, which create greatly overpowered player-controlled minions. Some interesting ideas at work here, but you can't seriously argue that the author designed this with full knowledge of the 4e mechanics. It's amateurish at best. --75.21.170.64 05:15, October 8, 2009 (UTC) quote:You can take only one immediate action per round, either an immediate interrupt or an immediate reaction. If you take an immediate action, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn, but you can’t take an immediate action on your own turn. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the fundamentals of Dungeons and Dragons Fourth Edition. --Reginald P. Linux 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC) quote:Nothing I said contradicted that. I understand the rules just find. If you don't see that, you don't understand the basic use of the English language. Also, anyone who thinks they should "Leave the design to the professionals at WOTC" (which I see you wisely edited out, but still thought) REALLY is not too clever. Karrius 22:17, September 1, 2009 (UTC) Libertad! fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Homeless people and squatters, basically goblins and orcs, right? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, I have been tasked with clearing a building of the homeless and ner-do-wells who have taken up residence there. Its about 9000 square feet, 100 years old and filled with large and small rooms, 3 decades of debris and well, some homeless, crooks, gang peoples and, as a previous inspection revealed, some needle sharing junkies. It has no electricity and 1/2 is underground, replete with well shafts, elevator shafts, small corridors an, junk. What struck me the first time in there is how poor even a good lantern is at revealing the space and junk around me. I mean, it was seriously weird going underground and not being able to make out anything clearly more than about ten feet from me. So, in the morn, me and steve and todd are taking a break to go on a dungeon crawl. I will try to video the whole thing or at least portions of it. Then feed it out in the evening. Should be fun. Hopefully no one is there when I show up. It will be difficult to video a fight. Also, I am not sure anyone would roll initiative. Should be fun!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
quote:I literally cannot think of a single game in the history of this medium that failed to include character generation and did not subsequently fail itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
quote:
Brainsmarts are just so abstract, wizards have to have giant awesome spell lists to balance against fighter-types' literally 0 non-combat cool powers. In every game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
OP titled "You're a pussy" posted:Yes, you. quote:Can I use that as the introduction for my game, please? not sure if |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Okay, this one is definitely  GMS posted:Or, to put it another way: SJWs — just because you’re right, doesn’t mean that you’re NOT an rear end in a top hat. Stop driving away allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
quote:I know this topic has been covered before, and naysayers are ruthlessly criticized by FFG loyalists but I have something to say and then I will give FFG one final one finger salute.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
some guy's response to Eclipse Phase's banning of MRAs posted:So basically, “We believe all women are people, therefore we cannot agree with treating men as people. We cannot support a viewpoint that insists on attacking others and who may be driving people away from our forums, therefore we are disowning and banning all people with opposing viewpoints. Also we wrote this earlier, but we were waiting for a good public tragedy to pin on MRAs.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 05:34
|
|